An unsolicited advertising link showed up on my gmail account. It was from Human Events, the self-described "National Conservative Weekly." My mother might take issue with that description. She considers herself the paradigm for a conservative Republican. She is deeply embarrassed that the last three Republican administrations have engaged in record deficit spending, while an intervening liberal Democratic president managed to balance the budget and almost eliminate the national debt. You could call Human Events the "Borrow and Spend Government Weekly." But professional pundits consider it to be a quintessentially "conservative" publication. So be it.
The unsolicited ad link offered me a FREE paper, with the catchy title, BARACK OBAMA EXPOSED! Naturally I wanted a copy. They were happy to download the free exposé. But its true "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" (TANSTAAFL). First came three web pages full of clickable ads for all kinds of merchandise and services I definitely do not need. I had to be careful too, because if I clicked on the wrong button, I would be authorizing purchase, dissemination of my personal information, etc. etc. etc. No doubt Human Events gets a cut on every sale. Talk about arrogant people, who think they know what is best for me, better than I do. Thank God I know how to look for the SKIP button.
Then I got to the final pitch. A striking but not particularly attractive blonde woman, name of Ann Coulter, offered me a FREE copy of her latest book, something about how liberals can't be liberals without God, in appreciation for my new subscription to Human Events. No thank you. I just wanted to see all the worst that could be said about Barack Obama collected in one convenient pdf file. Ann Coulter? If this woman loved her enemies, she would be a Christian.
But at last I broke my connection with this pushy web site, and could curl up to read all the dirt about the man I voted for in my state's primary.
Disclosure: Yes, the anonymous individual behind this DemocritusNA persona voted for Obama, and I have an Obama bumper sticker on my car. I meant to make the contents of this site available in a nonpartisan spirit to whoever cared to use it: John McCain, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, anyone. But I just had to take up this offer, read the material, and then dissect it in an articulate manner. So a brief disclosure is in order. We all know that Publius, who wrote The Federalist Papers, was really Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. We all know that Vindex was Samuel Adams. For now, my name is unimportant, but for the record, I consider myself a Madisonian Federalist. And I did vote for Barack Hussein Obama.
Barack Obama Exposed! turns out to be a hastily collected anthology of articles, most previously published in Human Events, or by its sister publishing companies, most by regular contributors or staff. Nine of these articles could be considered favorable to Obama. If I were his campaign manager, I might well run off copies.
"Barack Obama and the Pertinent Precedents" by Steve Chapman is glowing praise with a few sensible caveats. Chapman compares Obama to Colin Powell, finds many admirable qualities in common, then notes that Powell had more experience commanding before anyone talked about him as a possible president. (Certainly Powell would have made a better president than the man with NO experience in command, whom he served under as Secretary of State.) The way in which Obama resembles George W. Bush, "his thin resumé," will not help him observes Chapman, but it may be cancelled out by the ways in which he contrasts with the outgoing president: "notably, being thoughtful, articulate and seemingly open to opposing views. Bush is the commander in chief. But it’s Obama who gives the effortless impression of command." Wow. No wonder some life-long Republicans I have known since childhood are thinking of voting for Obama. Now when does Obama start to be EXPOSED?
D.R. Tucker asks "Will GOP Be Ready for Obama Onslaught?" and makes a good case that it will not. Tucker finds this obnoxious. Obama, he worries "offers the Democrats an opportunity to once and for all destroy any chance the GOP has of appealing to black voters." The Republican Party, says Tucker, must be prepared to defend its record on race. Well, yes, the Republican Party gave the nation a president with a very admirable record on race; his name was Abraham Lincoln. A more recent Republican president appointed a very intelligent African American to the cabinet, and side-lined him for pointing out inconvenient truths. Certainly to a partisan Republican (and any American has a constitutional right to be one) Tucker poses an important question. But to undecided voters, this is hardly an exposé showing that Obama is unqualified to be president.
Robert Spencer's "Our First Muslim President?" debunks its title with admirable honesty. He suggests that Obama may be our first Muslim president in the sense that Bill Clinton was our first "black president." Spencer actually speculates whether Muslim clergy may put Obama under a death sentence for NOT being a Muslim, since he attended school in a predominantly Muslim nation, Indonesia. But Spencer is just kidding. He admits that is not going to happen. And he knows Obama is a bond fide active worshipping member of a United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Dennis Byrne, in a piece called "Is Obama Black Enough" ends up highlighting what a ludicrous question that really is. Byrne is not anxious to see Obama win, because Byrne differs on how the U.S.A. should be governed for the next four to eight years. But he freely admits, "The vetting has begun of Obama’s views on great and small issues, and of his mettle and character. This is all that counts." Byrne offers no scandals, just straightforward disagreement. And he's not disagreeable about it.
Bill O'Reilly is almost sympathetic in "The Perils of Obama," noting that unfortunate misunderstandings about the meaning of various words may have caused him to fall 14 points behind Hillary Clinton in a January poll. Well, I guess that's old news now.
Ericka Anderson's title "Debate Coverage: The Obama Question," belies its content, which is basically a quick round-up of everything that may be wrong with each Democratic candidate's contributions to the debates. And that's kind of old news now too.
Dan Proft's "Reality of Obama Taking Hold" observes hopefully that Hillary Clinton's lead over Obama has widened to 33 points, "just as she has emerged as the front-runner in Iowa." If that weren't one small step in a long race, it would rank right up there with the Chicago Tribune's famous headline "Dewey Defeats Truman." And, this must be the first time anyone writing in Human Events spoke with admiration of Hillary Clinton's commanding lead for anything.
The very next page, "Obama In Perspective" by Robert J. Caldwell, is a bit more up to date. One wonders why the editor who put all this together didn't notice the disconnection. Obama "won a smashing victory in Iowa, then gave a stirring speech framed as a transformational moment in American history." Caldwell is a little concerned that Obama has a relatively short resum
"Huckabee and Obama: A Study in Contrasts" by Star Parker draws parallels, then makes distinctions, which amount to, for anyone who writes for
Ann Coulter (there she is again) contributes a tired mix of name-calling and considered sarcasm. That's a legitimate art form, and it will play well to the budding thespian's fan base, but hardly informative to undecided or wavering voters. Seven articles to go.
Amanda B. Carpenter offers up three articles which prove to her personal satisfaction that Obama has a liberal voting record in the Illinois legislature. I don't recall that Obama ever said he has a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union, or that he is a compromise candidate with a 50% liberal and 50% conservative record. His first classic sound byte on the national stage was "We worship an awesome God in the blue states." He offered that the polarization between liberal and conservative, red and blue states, not to mention the tired old black and white, are hollow nothings. Carpenter obviously clings to her hollow nothings, which have been a great comfort to her, but the rest of us are tired of them.
Tom Fitton reviews some questionable real estate deals with a questionable man now under indictment, under the title "Barack Obama's Whitewater?" The facts as stated are disturbing, and could best be addressed by the candidate publicly saying "I made a mistake here, I regret it. I'm not going to move my family out of our home now, but I will be more careful in the future." On the other hand, Fitton could have his facts all wrong. Who knows? Its not a make or break situation.
Michelle Malkin and Ben Shapiro manage to score a few points about Iraq. ("Obama: Wasting His Own Breath" and "Iran Praying for Obama"). It all turns on the phrase that "
It probably isn't enough that Obama told the Des Moines Register "I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term," or that he clarified "What I would say-and meant to say-is that their service hasn’t been honored." Now, let's get real on this question. When thousands of soldiers are sent into a conflict overseas, and the mission gets bogged down in a long, protracted fight, there will be many thoughts among the troops, and among the civilians. There will be many motives among those in uniform. Some become sick and tired, demoralized, or develop moral doubts about why they are there. They don't speak for everybody; never have and never will. Many earnestly desire to provide security and peace to a civilian population which badly needs and desires it, especially if they have personal experience with individual Iraqis they were able to serve and protect.
But there is still a factual question: With all the best motives and most earnest convictions, with all the skills, training and determination in the world, are we delivering that objective? Considering the incompetent way the troops were sent in, in the first place, are we in a position where we CAN deliver that objective? If not, then in the end, it may prove true that over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans have been wasted. One thing General David Petraeus has firmly stated is that IF the Iraqi political leaders and government cannot pull their own nation together, then no sacrifice by American soldiers can do that for them.
The Bush administration offered us a glowing vision that "the Iraqi people" would "welcome us as liberators" and then peace and democracy would reign. Mission accomplished in May 2003, remember? It turns out there is no such thing as "the Iraqi people," there is no unified democratic leadership in Iraq, and while most people were glad to be rid of Saddam, everyone had their own agenda, which is not ours, and involves a good deal of killing each other. In that specific sense, the lives of many of brave American soldiers were wasted on a lie.
Whether we can pull anything worthwhile out of the mission now is open to doubt, but is still up for debate. Meantime, every American soldier who has saved the life of an Iraqi family can and should be proud of that. Nobody should expect a soldier who has to put on their uniform each morning, pick up their gun, and go out on patrol, to do so thinking "I may die today, and it will all be for nothing." Even pulling out has to be managed better than that.
Shapiro shoots himself in the foot, quoting Australian Prime Minister John Howard "lashing out" after Obama sponsored legislation calling for a full troop withdrawal from Iraq. Make that former Prime Minister Howard. The Australian people dumped him in the last election, because they also want a full withdrawal of their own troops from Iraq. As Obama responded at the time, Howard's words were empty rhetoric unless he called up another 20,000 Australian troops as his contribution to the war, and it appears Howard is no longer in any position to do that. Australian voters have told him "We won't go."
Most undecided voters who have bothered to read this column have long since fallen asleep. "Barack Obama Exposed" is a mind-numbing 37 pages long. If this is how so-called "conservatives" have "Exposed" Barack Obama, he seems to be headed for a landslide victory in November.
